"Jim Lesurf" wrote

Since Winston isn't a physicist I assume you aren't talking about the same
people as David (?) Afraid I haven't heard the programme so can't comment
on it as such.


You are correct, Robert Winston wasn't one of the people on the programme.
I'm not aware of ever having heard Robert Winston talk about his beliefs, so
I don't know what his "version" is.

"Beyond Belief" is still available on iPlayer if you interested.

David.

Don Pearce wrote:

Be careful when ascribing purpose. Arguably the
greatest piece of
sacred music - Verdi's Requiem - was written by an
atheist.


But was it commissioned by an atheist?


That doesn't matter. It was Verdi's purpose in writing
it that is of
the essence.


With respect, the purposes of those who commissioned and
performed the work
were every bit as "of the essence".


Not to Verdi it wasn't - may have been to them, but that
is another
question. To Verdi it was a commission, which he executed
superbly.
His purpose in doing it? Who can say? Obviously part of it
was to get
paid. Another part was that as an artist he wanted to
produce a
masterpiece. There are probably as many other purposes as
he had
instants to think of them.

One of them was certainly not to glorify a god, which was
no doubt
uppermost in the minds of his customers.


A chair, for example, has the same purpose whatever the
intention of the person who made it. It's the purpose the
chair is put to that counts, surely?

Similarly, the purpose of music is not determined by the
performer, or composer, or maybe even the listener. Possibly
it has a social purpose that we don't, and maybe can't,
understand. Economics is a social activity that presumably
has some purpose but we can't seem to get a grip on how that
works either. My hypothesis is that musical traditions and
the development of civilisation somehow follow a common
path. The one expresses the other, as if it's the sound of
society talking to itself. Music, if you like, is in the
feedback control loop of society. Naturally civilisation is
a complicated system, with lots of ebbs and flows and
swirls, large and small, along the way. Music sounds like
that.

Er...there are probably other interpretations.

Just wondering if the concept of "social intelligence" has
any currency. Can an organisation be clever? Suppose I
should look...

Another thought. My dielectical materialism holds that an
organised whole is always greater than the simple sum of its
parts. A car, for example, has all the properties of a car,
and also all the properties of its components. The "carness"
appears extra. Same with humans and cells, etc. etc.
Similarly, a society is more than the sum total of the
people in it, and music is part of the extra. Who knows?

Ian

Rob wrote:

Establishing. or at least trying to establish, 'cause'
(reason, purpose,
whatever) is not usually an act of bamboozlement in my
book. It can be I
suppose.

Now change "establish" to "trying to inject". The point
(as per below) is
that some want to use any old set of words to somehow get
to 'proving' that
there is 'purpose' leading to some preferred
old-man-with-a-white-beard or
some other preferred set of invisible primary control.


Mmmm. I'm not moving. I don't think 'injecting' causal
mechanisms from decent evidence obfuscates etc. I think it
clarifies. Through statement you set yourself up to be
knocked down.

Yes. A clear but possibly erroneous cause is more use than
fog. Isn't that how science works? And isn't that also how
religion served the same purpose?

This is complicated because, almost in the sense of a
self-fulfilling prophecy, 'god' as a concept does cause
quite a lot. But still.

Yes. Like churches and plainsong and the woman down town who
waves the bible and talks in tongues...

The dialectic, the dynamic interplay between our ideas and
the material world, drives our development.

I'm sure/would hope you have much
better things to do, but there's a start he

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fe...mology/#femsci

Reasons for things :-)

The main reason for philosophy is to have a job where you
get to tell
others how well you are doing. So ensuring the otherwise
unemployable get
to eat and feel important. ;-


The few I know/have come across are quite stroppy pedants.
But I've quite enjoyed some Marxist philosophy, and
Popper, and it can be (should be, I think) of use when
thinking about social research methods.


Hegel!

You should read "The Phenomenology of Spirit"

He's *exactly* what Jim hates most, I would guess.

Popper's main mission in life was to write "The open society
and its enemies". The enemies being Plato, Marx and Hegel.
Check his quotations...many are slyly quilted from
out-of-context fragments. Pure political cronyism.

Marx is the dialectical transformation of Hegel. For Hegel,
the world evolves from a single idea, which develops
logically and creates the material world as it goes, until
the Big Idea fully realises itself, such that History and
Logic are one and the same. It's a complete and detailed
version of "God made the world in his own image" thing,
adding that god isn't fully real 'til he's finished, and
he's only half way done. I don't think at the time he could
have got away with saying "The world is god, and god is the
world". Head chopped off problem. For Marx, and more
strictly for Engels, the starting point is matter, which
develops in the way that science discovers, from which it
acquires consciousness and ultimately, through us (and/or
other intelligent things) asserts its influence and
ultimately comes to know itself through the process of
changing the world. For both, material and mind are
interdependent opposites and hence change according to the
laws of dialectics. The world becomes god, god becomes the
world.

Here's a taste...

http://www.ivesonaudio.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/hegel.htm


From his masterpiece Preface, written to explain why he
refused to write a preface. How cool is that, Jim? :-)

Actually, if you really do read The Phenomenology, I
recommend missing out the Preface. Read the first chapter
several times until you're absolutely sure you don't know
what he's on about. Then read the Preface. Wait for a week
or so and finally, when you're least expecting it, in an
intense flash of white light and a fanfare of heavenly
trumpets, it will make astounding sense. Like a visit from
god :-)

As for Philosophers and stroppy pedants, I was taught by
Mary Midgley, definitely not a pedant. Her husband, who
wasn't stroppy, was also a philosopher, and an audio expert
of some kind for the BBC...something to do with classical
music presentation probably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley

Mary has headed government committees on ethical issues,
advising the lawmaking process. As it turns out, she is also
Dawkins' bête noire. Philosophers do plenty of serious work.

Ian

Don Pearce wrote:

As in the conversation (supposedly true, but probably not)
between two
philosophers.
P1 "What did you think of my book?"
P2 "Couldn't make out a word of it"
P1 "Oh, thank you so much!"

Possibly the most famous such apocryphal tale concerns G.E.
Moore, who faced a panel including Russell and Wittgenstein,
to gain his fellowship at Cambridge. Asked to explain his
standpoint on ethics, he replied

"Should anyone ask me the meaning of 'good', I would reply
'good is good, and let that be the end of the matter'."

After a lengthy pause and considerable discussion amongst
themselves, Russell said "We haven't the foggiest notion
what you mean. Welcome to Cambridge".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore

More Jim's kinda guy, maybe.

Ian

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:54:04 +0100, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Be careful when ascribing purpose. Arguably the
greatest piece of
sacred music - Verdi's Requiem - was written by an
atheist.


But was it commissioned by an atheist?


That doesn't matter. It was Verdi's purpose in writing
it that is of
the essence.


With respect, the purposes of those who commissioned and
performed the work
were every bit as "of the essence".


Not to Verdi it wasn't - may have been to them, but that
is another
question. To Verdi it was a commission, which he executed
superbly.
His purpose in doing it? Who can say? Obviously part of it
was to get
paid. Another part was that as an artist he wanted to
produce a
masterpiece. There are probably as many other purposes as
he had
instants to think of them.

One of them was certainly not to glorify a god, which was
no doubt
uppermost in the minds of his customers.


A chair, for example, has the same purpose whatever the
intention of the person who made it. It's the purpose the
chair is put to that counts, surely?

Similarly, the purpose of music is not determined by the
performer, or composer, or maybe even the listener. Possibly
it has a social purpose that we don't, and maybe can't,
understand. Economics is a social activity that presumably
has some purpose but we can't seem to get a grip on how that
works either. My hypothesis is that musical traditions and
the development of civilisation somehow follow a common
path. The one expresses the other, as if it's the sound of
society talking to itself. Music, if you like, is in the
feedback control loop of society. Naturally civilisation is
a complicated system, with lots of ebbs and flows and
swirls, large and small, along the way. Music sounds like
that.

Er...there are probably other interpretations.

Just wondering if the concept of "social intelligence" has
any currency. Can an organisation be clever? Suppose I
should look...

Another thought. My dielectical materialism holds that an
organised whole is always greater than the simple sum of its
parts. A car, for example, has all the properties of a car,
and also all the properties of its components. The "carness"
appears extra. Same with humans and cells, etc. etc.
Similarly, a society is more than the sum total of the
people in it, and music is part of the extra. Who knows?

Ian


Here we see the root of the problem - the two meanings of the word
"pupose".One is an active intent on the part of a sentient being, the
other is a use, either innate or ascribed.

When we talk of the purpose of music, we aren't assigning intelligence
and choice (purpose) to the music, just describing a use to which it
could be put. Verdi had a purpose - or rather many purposes - when he
wrote his requiem. He probably also decided that the music had a
purpose - the other definition- but they are not the same thing or
even related.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:54:04 +0100, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:


A chair, for example, has the same purpose whatever the
intention of the person who made it. It's the purpose the
chair is put to that counts, surely?

Here we see the root of the problem - the two meanings of the word
"pupose".One is an active intent on the part of a sentient being, the
other is a use, either innate or ascribed.

Absolutely. I would say that the chair has a function, not a purpose. The
maker of the chair will have had a purpose in making it, the buyer of the
chair another purpose in buying it and user of the chair yet another in
sitting on it..

I quoted the definition of "purpose" from the on-line OED befo

the reason for which something is done or created or for which something
exists:

The "reason" a chair exists depends on the purpose of the maker in making
it. So the purpose belongs to the maker, not the chair.

David.

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:

[snip]

Here we see the root of the problem - the two meanings of the word
"pupose".One is an active intent on the part of a sentient being, the
other is a use, either innate or ascribed.

Quite a nice example of this kind of thing on yesterday's "Any Answers"
where someone phoned in the argument that "Saying there are scientific
'Laws' shows God exists. For there to be Laws there has to be a 'Lawgiver'
- i.e. God."

Thus showing that he wasn't using 'Laws' with the same definition. Hence by
confusing the meaning of the word got a 'proof' sic that God exists.

The problem here is that a language like English is saturated by being ina
culteral history where it was taken for granted for centuries that God
exists, etc. So the words get this diffused into their common meanings.
People then use them to argue on the basis of misleading assumptions.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

David Looser wrote:

The thing about religious music was an illustrative aside
to points others had already made. It has particular
importance with respect to the purpose of music, perhaps,
because for long stretch of recent human history,
churches and monasteries were pretty much the sole
repositories and originators of advanced musical
technology and theoretical discovery. Also, religious
music possibly comes closest to having a conscious,
avowed, purpose.


I entirely agree with that. For much of the last 2000
years "Sacred Music" and "Serious Music" were more or less
synonymous, at least within the Christian world. And that
is one area where there is a clear difference with Islam.
Whilst music in general has not always been frowned on
within Islam there is no tradition of Islamic sacred music
to rival that of the Christian Church.

You can't get much more divine than that Nusrat Khan track I
posted, IMO. OK, divine isn't the same as sacred, and many
Muslims think it's Haram. There may have been more stuff
when there was an Islamic empire. There were Islamic
universities which I guess were similar in function to
Christian monasteries and the early universities modelled on
them. I assume it takes a long tradition of contemplative
music-making to get at the crux of "sacred". Science
suffered the same fate, for the same reasons I guess. Most,
perhaps all, Islam appears most suited to feudal
organisation, like Catholicism. As a whole, it finds
capitalism problematic. The guy who has the Singapore
franchise for Unlucky Fried Kitten has declared a "business
Jihad", but I don't think he's likely to lead a revolution.

And yes, sacred music does have a "purpose", as does the
ritual use of rythmical drunmming by many cultures, such
as some native North American tribes.

But I still do not accept that there is *a* purpose to
music per se. We humans seem to be wired to find music
interesting and worth listening to. That, I suggest, is a
function of our evolution.

Ah, well, but...

Some time ago now, that anthropologist from the Open
University's "Coast" did a series on the Beeb
investigating the early spread of homo sapiens that you may
have seen. One question addressed was "What happened to all
the other early humans?". I gather that the favoured
hypothesis is that the neolithics were ultimately driven out
of house and home by the rampant sapiens. They had more or
less the same size brain, and the weapons technology of each
was broadly equal, but the home team got beat. At some cave
where there is evidence of a last stand, there are remains
of flutes. Sapiens had music, and the neolithics didn't. The
suggestion was that musical instruments are a sign of
*social* evolution: sapiens developed a more sophisticated
society, with a more complex division of labour, so they
could hunt in larger groups with different people assigned
distinct but complementary roles. That's a lot to infer from
a few flutes, of course, but it may fit with other stuff
anthropologists think they might know about. It's not an
exact science yet.

Next question could be whether such social evolution
happened in part because of some key aspect of the evolution
of individuals, or whether the neolithics were behind by
circumstance.

It would be logical, but I expect in no way proven by
anyone, to suggest that the same genetic disposition towards
social organisation is responsible, by chance or otherwise,
for our love of music. Alternatively, that social evolution
is directly related to the evolution of music, and we love
it because it reflects the society we are a part of.

Ian

David Looser wrote:

Psychoacoustics no more explains music than an
understanding of the visual cortex explains visual art.

Nor less. I don't think the psychology of vision can be
reduced to an understanding of the visual cortex, either,
so to me your comparison is invalid.

OK I'll try again. psychoacoustics is the science of the
way sound is perceived. It does not address the issue of
what makes any particular sequence of sounds "music", nor
why they should be enjoyable or important.

I'm uncomfortable with the word "purpose" in this
context. Try "function" instead.

I chose "purpose" on purpose. Your discomfort is an
unfortunate accident.

Well it's hardly an "accident"! As I've said in my other
reply to you "purpose" implies intent, thus requiring an
intelligence.

To make amends, in the hope of illiciting a more useful
response: what do you think the function of music is?

I don't think there is just one "function". Music affects
the emotions, depending on the hearer and the
circumstances that emotion can range from ecstasy to
annoyance. When it is deliberately sought out the emotion
will usually be a positive one. Extended rhythmical
drumming can produce a hypnotic trance-like state which
might be desired by some as an alternative "high" to
drug-taking or as a quasi-spiritual experience.


Not self-evident for those who only listen to pop,

Sorry, I fail to understand (or agree with) your point.
It's a study of human societies that will tell you that
music and music makers have a firm niche in just about
every social pattern, not what sort of music you do, or
don't, happen to listen to.

I'm unlikely, you might surmise, to follow your thinking
if it is premised on an avowed failure of understanding.

OK, what do you mean by "pop"?, and why does only
listening to that reduce one's ability to understand the
role of music in human societies?

I am questioning whether something can be "self evident"
if it seems so only to some people. That, of course, is
to doubt the whole notion of self-evidence.

It wasn't me who wrote "self-evident", I tend not to use
that phrase as what may be "self-evident" to one person
may well make no sense at all to someone else.


See above. Try to think for yourself a bit more.

It's the fact that I *am* thinking for myself that is the
reason you find things to argue against in my posts!

A recent visitor to my house seemed taken by the valve
amplifiers, so I asked if she was interested in music.
"I'm not obsessed" she replied. I guess she meant "no".

And the point of that anecdote is?

See below, where you suggest I am obsessed, merely for
thinking something is important.

I wasn't sure what the supposed connection was between
someone being "taken" by seeing valves and finding music
"important". Nor why you think that if someone says they
are not "obsessed" with music it necessarily means they
don't think it important.


Yes, and?

You snipped the and...

I did, because your argument didn't seem to be going
anywhere.

snip

...there. Someone said Islam is against music.

No, I said that there is an anti-music faction *within*
Islam. I also said that there were others within Islam who
disagreed. I have no way of knowing how large or
influential the anti-music faction is, but as Islamic
societies differ vastly from country to country I guess it
depends where you are. In Saudi-Arabia I understand that
faction wields considerable influence.

There are myriad factions everywhere. The structure of Islam
is a single pyramid in which every individual is connected
through a single unbroken line to the Prophet. Nearly every
time a non-Muslim politician talks about Islam, they make it
clear that they simply haven't bothered to find out this
crucial feature. I can go to any mosque in Bradford and hear
any number of teachers in each one, all free to make
presentations and gather followers.

I tried to illustrate that Christianity has also placed
constraints on music, and that only some parts of Islam
do so, to varying degrees. The point is to weaken the
mistaken contention that Islam can be legitimately
singled out in this respect.

Is that what you were trying to do? actually Arnie had
already made that point, and did so far more clearly and
succinctly. But there is a difference, the anti-music
faction within Islam forbids any music making at all, and
regards the playing of musical instruments as "sinful".
I'm not aware of any significant faction within
Christianity that takes such an extreme position. What you
seemed to be complaining about was that some Christian
churches restrict the "acceptable" music to a few rather
conservative styles.

Obsession? Are you asking why modernity is important? Do
you think it isn't?

Not in music. Why should modern music be any "better" than
older styles?

Also, you missed the hint of irony intended by "at
least".

I noticed it.


Transcendental, perhaps. Whereas English is the
language of individuals within a society, music is the
sound of society itself. Just as the cells in our
bodies can't understand English, we can't understand
music.

Again - Eh? what are you on about?

Give me a clue about what you don't understand, and ask
like you might be hoping for an answer, and I'll do my
best for you.

OK, what do you mean by "music is the sound of society
itself"? And what do you mean by "Just as the cells in our
bodies can't understand English, we can't understand
music"? What, in fact, do you understand by the phrase
"understand music"?

I hope I've done this elsewhere by now. Essentially, we are
made up of cells that don't know what we know. Could it be
that society is made of of humans who don't know what it
knows? Could there be a social intelligence that transcends,
in that sense, our own? It may be useful or illuminating to
consider music to be a language of the social intelligence,
in which we all take part, but which as individuals we can't
fully understand.

I wonder if I assume too much...do you see music as a motley
procession of unconnected events, or do you feel it
develops? Does music progress and, if so, how can the degree
of that progress be recognised from the sound?

It's just struck me what this could all be about...

If music is an essentially social endeavour, then I should
stop messing about with audio equipment, and go buy the most
popular kit. Get into the swim, feel the pulse, and quit the
self-defeating elitism of audiophilia. High fidelity is true
to purpose...and the purpose isn't mine to mess with.

It's the best you are going to get from a vague question.
Until you define precisely what you mean by "engineer" we
can't say what importance, if any, music might have to him
(or her).

There's something about "we" in this context that really
gets up my nose.

Anyway, part of what I wondered is what ppl might think an
engineer is. Also, I have a clear idea of what an engineer
is which, AFAIK, could be the same as everyone else's. As it
happens, you think "engineer" is not clear. I couldn't
predict that. Also, and most of all, I felt that anyone who
thought *any* engineer, *however* defined by whatever
stroppy pedants might demand its precise definition, should
know the purpose of music, they should be equally free to
say so.

Ian

"Ian Iveson" wrote

You can't get much more divine than that Nusrat Khan track I
posted, IMO.

One track does not a tradition make! There is a history of Christian music
dating back at least to the end of the 1st millenium. Where is the
equivalent Muslim tradition?

OK, divine isn't the same as sacred, and many
Muslims think it's Haram. There may have been more stuff
when there was an Islamic empire.

I was just wondering about that. What was the place of music in the
courts of the Abbasid Caliphs. Does anyone know?

There were Islamic
universities which I guess were similar in function to
Christian monasteries and the early universities modelled on
them.

My understanding is that the western universities were modelled on Islamic
universities, not Christian monastries. Islam has no monastic tradiition.

I assume it takes a long tradition of contemplative
music-making to get at the crux of "sacred".

What do you mean by "contemplative" music making? When I spoke of a
tradition of sacred music I simply meant a tradition of creating music
intended for use in churches and as part of worship. How much music has been
created for use in Islamic worship?

Science
suffered the same fate, for the same reasons I guess.

Are you talking about the fate of *Islamic* science here? because your
phraseology is anything but clear. And are you suggesting that it suffered
the "same fate" as Islamic music? If so I think your analogy flawed. There
was undoubtedly a great flowering of Islamic science under the Abbasid
Caliphs. I am not aware of any equivalent flowering of Islamic music.

Most,
perhaps all, Islam appears most suited to feudal
organisation, like Catholicism. As a whole, it finds
capitalism problematic. The guy who has the Singapore
franchise for Unlucky Fried Kitten has declared a "business
Jihad", but I don't think he's likely to lead a revolution.

And yes, sacred music does have a "purpose", as does the
ritual use of rythmical drunmming by many cultures, such
as some native North American tribes.

But I still do not accept that there is *a* purpose to
music per se. We humans seem to be wired to find music
interesting and worth listening to. That, I suggest, is a
function of our evolution.

Ah, well, but...

Some time ago now, that anthropologist from the Open
University's "Coast" did a series on the Beeb
investigating the early spread of homo sapiens that you may
have seen.

I did.

One question addressed was "What happened to all
the other early humans?".

Odd way of putting it. I take it you mean "what happened to the other
hominid species?" Referring to "early humans" implies that you are referring
to early Homo Sapiens.

I gather that the favoured
hypothesis is that the neolithics were ultimately driven out
of house and home by the rampant sapiens.

You mean "Neanderthals". "Neolithics" would be homo sapiens; the builders of
Stonehenge were "neolithics"

They had more or
less the same size brain, and the weapons technology of each
was broadly equal, but the home team got beat.

Equal brain size does not mean equal intelligence. Many animals have brains
equal in size to ours.

At some cave
where there is evidence of a last stand, there are remains
of flutes. Sapiens had music, and the neolithics didn't. The
suggestion was that musical instruments are a sign of
*social* evolution: sapiens developed a more sophisticated
society, with a more complex division of labour, so they
could hunt in larger groups with different people assigned
distinct but complementary roles. That's a lot to infer from
a few flutes, of course, but it may fit with other stuff
anthropologists think they might know about. It's not an
exact science yet.

What do you mean "yet"? When will anthropology *ever* be an exact science?

Yes it's a lot to infer from a few flutes, but this is the way of
archeo-anthropology. Find a belt buckle in a tomb and the
archeo-anthropologists will tell you the inhabitant's biography!

David.